That last part i wrote seemed completely opaque when i read it over
so let me try again:


Some people think a proprietary license indicates you will use the
law to keep anybody from using your intellectual "property", either
to maximize profit or because you're just insecure. The same folks
are likely to see an open/free license as a declaration that you want
to work with others.

Other people think a proprietary license is for making clear that
you'd prefer people check with you before doing something derived
from your work; you're likely to say yes, and you're not likely to
spend time & energy chasing down people who don't ask. The same folks
are likely to see an open/free license as just asking for trouble.


Does this make sense to y'all?


I don't really give a hoot about the license. I want others to be
able to make use of the work NcddWiki participants have done and will
be doing, *and* i'd like to know what they're doing with it, all in a
fun, friendly, working/playing-together sense. Whether we choose a
proprietary or a free/open license, i think we can express that
sentiment. And likely some people won't get that, no matter what we
do.


The other folks involved seem likely to choose a Creative Commons
license that allows sharing (non-viral) but no commercial usage. Can
anyone say why this might be a bad idea?

Life,
John
--
All you /\/\ John Abbe "Faith is not belief without proof,
need \ / CatHerder but trust without reservation."
is... \/ http://ourpla.net/john/ --Elton Trueblood